... 71% think someone brought to this country illegally when they were under 16 should be allowed to apply for a work permit rather than be deported if they have no criminal record, have graduated from high school or have served in the military. Twenty percent (20%) believe they should be deported anyway. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.

92 comments:

Check out Kaus' current screed. He links to a site that links to the new policy. Obama doesn't even put his name to it. It's not an EO. Gives plausible deniability when it morphs into something far more than publicized.

no criminal record, have graduated from high school or have served in the military.

Wait, is this a series of three, pick one? Because that looks like it as written. Are people really okay letting illegal immigrants with criminal records stay in the US just because they finished high school? It would make sense to me for it to be a two stage requirement:

1. No criminal record2. EITHER graduated from high school OR served in the military.

And since I think you have to have graduated from high school to serve in the military, it's really just "2. Graduated from high school."

Also, as Kaus points out, that isn't what the new policy says anyhow; it's just how it's being sold. Dishonestly.

Anyhow, I'm fine letting that discrete class stay, but I think they should have to pay a heightened tax levy in exchange for amnesty for the next 5 years or something. That won't make up for the grotesque unfairness to all the law abiding immigrants who waited in line and jumped through all the hoops (like many of my relatives, just as an example), but at least it's something.

He said his wife was from Mexico and immigrated legally to the U.S. He was livid about Obama's actions.

What self-respecting immigrant wouldn't be? It's like all the people who were prudent and bought mortgages they could afford who then had to subsidize the profligates and scofflaws that lied their way into mortgages they couldn't. The reward for playing by the rules is that the government screws you over and rewards the cheaters.

The difference here is that there's a subset of the people targeted by the administration's new policy who aren't morally culpable for their violation of our sovereignty. But it's only a subset, not the whole set.

@Balfegor You're right about the ambiguity in the wording, which is in the question asked: "Suppose someone was brought to the country illegally when they were under 16. If they have no criminal record, have graduated from high school or have served in the military, should they be allowed to apply for work permits or should they be deported?"

He has handled it precisely wrong and it is not limited to subverting our representative process and disenfranchisement of American citizens.

Before providing amnesty of any kind it is necessary to mitigate or prevent unmeasured immigration (i.e. illegal); define "natural born" citizenship as a legal status conveyed to a child by a mother and father who are citizens; remove all social benefits and other incentives offered to individuals who do not comply with our laws; establish English as the official language.

As it is, his policy will serve to further displace American citizens and legal residents and will sponsor progressive corruption of individuals and society.

Then there is the matter of implicitly condoning the corruption in nations of Central and South America, Africa, etc., which, presumably, was the impetus for certain people to leave.

It seems too much like the 1986 amnesty..."well, hell, they're already here, whaddya gonna do.." IOW shameful lazy disloyalty to US citizens, in the name of expedience.

I think the appropriate policy for illegal immigrants already here is just to ignore them until they break a law, and then deport them once they do. There's a huge number, yes, but they're also a problem that will die off in a generation or two, after which their children will be Americans.

The thing to do is to choke off the supply of new illegal immigrants, and the easiest way to do that is just to make it harder to sneak into the country. I'm a fan of just putting up a physical wall and patroling it. Maybe devoting some energy to tracking down people who overstay their tourist/student visas. But people who entered the country legally and overstayed their welcome seem less culpable to me than people who are sneaking in, so I'd set that as a lower priority.

The Imperial Presidency that can ignore the part of the oath that says:

I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States

should be a concern to Democrats as well.

PS: the cynic part of me smiles when I think that 800,000 illegals are providing La Migra with their names and addresses. What happens when the next President or the one after him, decides to alter the policy.

I'm thinking about exhuming the remains of my great great grandfather from the Civil War section of the Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery because he didn't live long enough to become a naturalized American. He was still a citizen of Prussia when he died. I'd take his remains there if Prussia was still on the map.

" People without the legal right to live and work in this country often bring their kids here with them."

What would we do without this genius?

They also bring their parents, their aunts and uncles, their cousins, etc. Chain migration is destroying England as whole Pakistani villages reconstitute themselves and bring their laws, morals, culture, etc.

There is a trend that way with the Mexican immigrants who go back and forth frequently. A fence would stop the frequent back and forth. We have less problem with immigrants from farther away who can't commute.

What would you prefer? "Immigration cheats"? That's fine with me. I know people want to elide the difference between immigrants who followed the rules and showed appropriate respect for the US and her laws, on the one hand, and illegal immigrants who disrespected us and ignored our immigration procedures on the other. But pretending these two groups are the same is grossly offensive to legal immigrants.

"PS: the cynic part of me smiles when I think that 800,000 illegals are providing La Migra with their names and addresses. What happens when the next President or the one after him, decides to alter the policy. "

What makes you think those addresses, or birthdates and age on entering the country, are accurate ? Is ICE going to check records ? What records ? The majority of these people coming in are illiterate in Spanish, let alone English.

At the LA County Hospital some years ago, somebody decided to do a study that involved checking on patients' current address and status. Guess what ? Nobody had given an accurate address ! Bills go to those address !

I can go along with setting up a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who were brought here as minors by their parents. But their parents should NOT.

If someone has come here and has a) been here for some lengthy period of time, b) had a good work history and c) not had a criminal record, I could consider giving them permanent resident alien status. But NO CITIZENSHIP.

I had a very odd cab ride this morning, the driver was from Cuba and has been here for 40 years.

I hope your Cuban cab driver (and you) realize that if immigrants from all countries were treated the same as those from Cuba, we wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem at all, because setting foot on American soil results in legal residency being granted.

"How can you serve in the military if you're here illegally? That puzzles me."

You can't. Unless, that is, you lie and forge documents. That is part of the idiocy of what Obama has done.

I am also looking forward to these so called beneficiaries of the new policy providing documentation of their presence here along with the name and addresses of their parents. It is an interesting concept: "become legal and deport your parents at the same time". I can see how it would appeal to some kids.

PPPS: Though the sound bite is about "innocents brought here through no fault of their own", apparently it also applies to teenage foreign criminals (isn't that better :) who crossed the border on their own. Think MS 13

In many cases they grow up not or barely speaking the language of their home countries

Not a problem. I've been told for decades that the United States is uniquely backward and reactionary enough to insist everyone speak the same language. Send these kids home and they'll be embraced and celebrated as linguistic minorities contributing to the cultural diversity of their native lands.

(1) The decree doesn’t just apply to illegal immigrants who were “brought to this country by their parents.” It also would give work permits to those who snuck across the border by themselves as teenagers. “Through no fault of their own” is a talking point for DREAM proselytizers, not an actual legal requirement. 2) The same goes for the phrase “and know only this country as home.” That’s a highly imaginative riff on the decree’s actual requirement, which is for 5 years “continuous residence.”

I think a reasonable test of whether someone is an asshole without any hope of improvement is if you sit them down and explain that:

A nation is defined by its borders. You will respect my borders. If you don't, I have the right to send you back, even if you entered as a 16-year-old baby. I might not, or I might. Depends on my mood and how nicely you ask to stay.

If their response is to take up a foreign flag and march in your street making demands, they're assholes.

Don't call them illegals? Why do you fear a correct and applicable lable? The truth often hurts, but that so does a shot. You face the truth, discomfort and all, to reap the benefits.

Or not and suffer the consequences. See the lies about people who respect the law being racist and such hurt the liar more than those lied about. God built consequences into the world. You can think of it as karma.

Don't call them illegals? Why do you fear a correct and applicable lable?

I'm not saying not to call them "illegal immigrants". If you want to use "illegal immigrants", I'm not going to complain. It's the difference between referring to them as illegal based on immigration status and saying their whole identity is illegal.

People who are illegal immigrants have consistently said they find that the label you have applied to them ("illegals") is a slur and shitty and dehumanizing, You can do with that information whatever you please.

I don't think that people who responded positively realised that when you give legal rights to stay in the country for one member of the family, you potentially allow all the family to stay as well, including the parents that brock the law as well.

It's basically an amnesty to families that stayed in the country long enough for their kid to finish a school. And for this requirement to work a couple of years was enough.

The King's conscience ( and one of his Chancellor's jobs) was granting mercy petitions which became the source of our Equity Jurisdiction. A Mercy act of the King could be sought as a needed remedy of a Law, but always predicated on being through no fault of the petitioner himself.

In a real sense what Obama I has gone and reenacted here is what a good KING should do.

And the Parliament once again raises another attitude about King's over-riding their Laws.

But it's a political act because Obama is a closet Muslim, and Muslims despise mercy as a weakness.

The policy about "anchor babies" is just that, a policy based on a pious paragraph in the existing immigration law, which badly needs to be thrown out and replaced by a rational immigration act, not written by State Department lawyers.. It has nothing to do with the Constitution.

I'm not saying not to call them "illegal immigrants". If you want to use "illegal immigrants", I'm not going to complain.

Ah, that's a much more reasonable position. I don't generally agree with people who object to labels as dehumanizing. E.g. some people are now teaching their mixed race children to get huffy that they should be called "double" rather than "half" -- I think this is stupid and if someone called me "double" I would be sorely tempted to lash out at him for lumping me together with those twits. Rather than this euphemistic "double" rubbish, I'd even prefer the full on "half-caste" or "mixed blood" (混血/혼혈). But I realise there are others with tenderer sensibilities on these sorts of points, and I'm fine with accomodating them thatfar.

Serving in the armed forces demonstrates a devotion to the Country more than sufficient to earn citizenship.)

Not to mention the fact that while military culture is different than civilian culture, it's a sub of the culture the immigrant is wanting to become a part of. Being the military is a very structured way of acclimating/assimilating.

If I were someone who wanted a special allowance in the law for minors who came into the country illegally like the “DREAM Act,” I’d be pretty upset with President Obama for doing an end-run around Congress. What’s he’s accomplished is a temporary “amnesty” that will likely only last for the remainder of his presidency (which could be less than seven months) that can just as easily be undone by the next President while at the same time solidifying opposition in the next Congress to anything more permanent like the “DREAM Act.” Obama may get a short-term gain in the polls but it will be at the expense of the long-term goals of the constituency that he’s pandering to.

Scott M said... Serving in the armed forces demonstrates a devotion to the Country more than sufficient to earn citizenship.)

Not to mention the fact that while military culture is different than civilian culture, it's a sub of the culture the immigrant is wanting to become a part of. Being the military is a very structured way of acclimating/assimilating.

I think one could fairly make a distinction between Legal green card holders, who can enlist, and foreign criminals, who acn't, except by committing yet another crime...

as for the basic thought. Think of it as Language and cultural immersion training. people pay big bucks to learn a language as fast as a Drill SGT teaches it. or as

Gunnery SGT Highway once said.

"I don't to get my ass shot off in some strange land because you don't Habla... Comprende?"

What’s he’s accomplished is a temporary “amnesty” that will likely only last for the remainder of his presidency (which could be less than seven months) that can just as easily be undone by the next President

I don't think that people who responded positively realised that when you give legal rights to stay in the country for one member of the family, you potentially allow all the family to stay as well, including the parents that brock the law as well.

It's basically an amnesty to families that stayed in the country long enough for their kid to finish a school. And for this requirement to work a couple of years was enough.___________________________________

Exactly!After you let the kids in,you're going to kick the parents out?(only shitty heartless brutes would do that)

After you let the kids, and mom and pop in, your not going to let grandma and grandpa in?

Then what about their half-sibs across the border? Are you against reuniting families? If you're against this you really are an asshole.

What I find amusing about this "amnesty" is there is this enormous stack of official federal documents filled out by individuals without any coercion where they self identify as illegal aliens, fill out their name and address and then sign them.

And if I were a President looking to deport some people ... where would I find a stack of official signed documents that frankly resemble confessions?

"It's the difference between referring to them as illegal based on immigration status and saying their whole identity is illegal. "

They are illegal. And how are they immigrants? Most of them routinely cross the border to go home. Are they participants in the immigration process?

Italians who went through Ellis Island participated in the immigration process of the time. They -immigrated-. The immigration process of our time is clear and these people aren't participants. So they obviously aren't -immigrants- in any way, shape or form to anyone who isn't an asshole.

That makes them aliens since they are citizens of a foreign nation and are not participants in our immigration process.

And since they are here illegally that makes them illegal aliens. Well to anyone who isn't an imbecilic asshole.

1) The decree doesn’t just apply to illegal immigrants who were “brought to this country by their parents.” It also would give work permits to those who snuck across the border by themselves as teenagers. “Through no fault of their own” is a talking point for DREAM proselytizers, not an actual legal requirement. 2) The same goes for the phrase “and know only this country as home.” That’s a highly imaginative riff on the decree’s actual requirement, which is for 5 years “continuous residence.” It turns out “continuous residence” doesn’t mean what you think it means. “Immigration attorneys have been successful in getting immigration courts to whittle this down to a point where it is almost meaningless,” says CIS’s Jon Feere. As an illegal immigrant you can go back homeabroad for multiple 6-month stints during those five years–but, if precedent holds, in Janet Napolitano’s eyes you will still “know only this country as home.”

Last, it does not apply only to "kids" or "children" or "teenagers". You can be thirty years old and still be covered.

"Romney knows how popular the Obama policy is, but he also knows the base of his party is full of racists."

What "bombshell"? It's the most idiotic plan ever conceived.

It offers absolutely no protections to those it purports to "help" since it is, at best, by executive order and, at worst, by bureaucratic fiat. Which means the next President can simply undo it before breakfast.

Additionally those that participate effectively confess to being in the USA illegally, self identify as illegal aliens and offer up a signed document attesting to this. Would a deportation order even need a judges approval?

On top of that shit sandwich those who participate get to look for a job in an economy that offers up to 40% unemployment for that age bracket. So they get a work visa when there isn't any work to get.

And, just to make this complete, Obama is adding millions of new workers into an economy that cannot employ the citizens already looking for work. That will make it really popular with the already unemployed.

While we're at it, let's not call dumbasses "dumbassess", let's not call crooks "crooks", let's not call convicts "convicts", and let's not call socialists "socialists". Because it hurts the feelings of the people in question.

The successful "Narrative" of the progressive Jews in the media, Democrat Party, hispanic activists and the usual Open Borders crowd tries to implant the meme:

"These children, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN!!!, just ended up here. How can you PUNISH THEM!!!"

It plays well with the "fair-minded American" - who thinks "awwwwwwww, why not be compassionate??"

Unfortunately, few really think this through.

1. How does this affect The Children, who through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN - had parents who respected our laws and wait in legal immigration application lines in Columbia, Nigeria, Romania, the Philippines? Without free US medical care, free food, free school, free housing...Why only reward children of immigration lawbreakers? Shouldn't we amnesty all those abroad who have put in immigration papers?

2. What about the US citizen child, who THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN - have seen their parents made unemployed or wages severly depressed because of millions of illegals?

3. What of those that abide by the law and wait to get legal approval to immigrate...again seeing scammers and lawbreakers that jumped the line AGAIN being rewarded with citizenship?? How does this make them feel like anything but fools for not going the fake refugee claim, smuggled by coyotes, overstay a student or tourist visa route??

4. Shall we reward the fruits of other crimes where the beneficiaries of their parents illegal acts are the INNOCENT Children, who THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN got nice new cars on their 16th birthdays and grew up in a mansion obtained by mommy's Wall STreet Frauds...or daddy's scamming of medicaid through 3 health care front companies?

Why should those innocent children suffer by having to give back the BMW or move from the mansion they grew up in????

5. If we erode respect for the law - and reward lawbreakers - why shouldn't blacks be free to form flash mobs and take what they want...which through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN...their parents can't give them?? Why should a white adult report any income he is reasonably certin the IRS can't trace? (Especially if they oppose numerous areas where the IRS funds the government to spend in - they oppose)

The real purpose of Obama's proposal is getting Obama re-elected. Whether you agree with him or not, you know this is why he endorsed gay marriage, and why he's doing this. As a narcissistic sociopath, his only true care is how he can manipulate people into voting for him. If he thought he'd get more votes by lobbing a drone on their heads, he'd do that.

This executive order turns out be an executive order that is not an Executive Order, but only a memo, not from the Justice department, but from Janet Napolitano to her myrmidons in the DHS, and so convoluted and hedged about that it will be just about impossible to take action against.

Federal employees in all agencies will understand and act on it, but fighting this will be like fighting a fogbank.

And it still is a disservice to the "illegals." This will just inflame passions further, but then that was probably the main idea anyway.

A few years ago, in a Spanish language newspaper, I read of a Dominican immigrant who was fighting deportation. He had fathered three children by different women. He felt that it was unfair of the US government to deprive these children of their father. I don't know what became of the case......I can't get too outspoken in opposition to Obama's ruling. I know that this ruling will apply to some needy and deserving cases. We will hear all about them. But there will be other cases, not so needy and not so deserving, that we will never hear about.....I'm not so angry about the ruling, but I am angry about the cynicism of the President who made the ruling in such a way as to heighten the antagonisms surrounding it. This wasn't leadership. It was politics.....Also, under dept of unintended consequences, will this not ineevitably lead to immigrants trying to smuggle their babies into the US, as their hostage for the future. If some of these babies die on the arduous journey, won't Obama and Andy be complicit in baby murder.

Apparently we have discarded democracy in favor of a new government form: storiocracy. Rule by those with a tale to tell.

And it is a very sad tale indeed, that children would be brought here by irresponsible parents and then grow up knowing only a country in which they could not legally stay. But a sad story is no reason to decide that the law-making power should be transferred to the executive branch. :)

What is this nonsense with "these kids don't even speak the language of the country of their birth any longer"?!

Maybe 0.00001% don't -- but that would mean that their parents speak English well enough for it to be the primary language spoken in the home, which I expect to be pretty darn unlikely, what with the tragic tales of kids being stuck in the translator role because mama and papa don't speak English.

Also note the "bait and switch" -- the original bill said that these kids had to be college students (though a 2 year degree was just fine) and we were given sad stories of valedictorians; now all that's required is working on a GED (which, by the way, can be taken in Spanish).

This is a load of nonsense. Why on earth is it such an unthinkable cruelty for a 20 year old to return to the land of their birth, which they left a mere 5 years previously? We're a country of immigrants, but it's intolerable to expect anyone to resettle in another country, unless that country is the U.S.?

As someone pointed out above, since a HS diploma is pretty much required these days to join the military (and a lot of enlistees now come in with some college), the requirement is really that they graduated from HS and got here before 16, or are still going to school, plus no big criminal record.

Why are we essentially giving amnesty to people who are almost illiterate, in today's technological society? A HS diploma (or, apparently, a GED) is the minimum requirement for most jobs these days.

Sounds pretty much like blanket amnesty for those who got here before age 16.